The trial of the civil lawsuit against Harvard University began this week in Boston’s Federal District Court. It is not a jury trial but will be heard and decided by a judge.
What’s at stake is control of admissions policies that determine what an incoming freshman class will look like — who gets the “big envelope” acceptance and who gets a brief “regrets” letter and is rejected.
What is also at stake is whether admission practices at a private university should be treated differently from those at a public one. A parallel suit has been filed against the University of North Carolina.
Applicants to Harvard face daunting statistics, starting with the fact that fewer than one in 20 are accepted. It is without doubt the most sought-after, and most selective, university in the United States. It is also the most financially independent; the size of its endowment provides a considerable amount of insulation from the financial constraints that burden other colleges and universities. As an institution it is older than our nation, founded 140 years before the Declaration of Independence.
Essentially, the plaintiffs claim that the university uses racial quotas in its admissions policy and is discriminating against Asian-Americans who otherwise would be admitted. The university responds that it uses race as a factor in admissions — which the U.S. Supreme Court said is legal, in order to ensure diversity.
This portion of the lawsuit raises two questions. The first is what the proper role of standardized tests, such as the SATs and the ACT? And how does that matter in an institution like Harvard, for which virtually all applicants have very high scores on these tests?
Harvard apparently uses its admissions policy to select students who will excel at their studies, and while they will have to defend the specifics of that fact is that SAT or ACT scores are a better indicator of “can” rather than “will” and are an unreliable predictor of actual college performance.
Of course, the university’s admissions policy has not been consistent or foolproof in this regard, either. It has notoriously admitted some real losers, some with criminal records. And the appalling amount of Harvard’s undergraduate resources devoted to remedial work has made headlines.
The court may have to weigh in on the weights assigned each factor used in the admissions policy. The plaintiffs argue that that Harvard already uses quotas to maintain something of a rural-urban balance in the student body. That doesn’t seem like a bad thing, but it might seem so in the context of this case.
Underneath this surface simplicity lurk several complicating questions. Each of them is important and relevant, but it is not clear whether they will play a role in this lawsuit.
The first is, basically, “Who’s in charge?” Who should determine college admissions, the federal government or the college? Should the college be free to admit anyone they want, or do applicants have to pass federal muster of some sort?
The question will undoubtedly come up if the judge in the Harvard case allows a broad argument that includes “legacy” admissions. At Harvard and many other elite schools, an applicant’s relationship to the school matters. If, say, a parent is a graduate, that would be a significant factor in the acceptance decision. Also appended to this category are the offspring of particularly generous donors. Their applications would receive similar treatment.
None of these admissions decisions is inherently evil. They are simply common sense. A college or university naturally wants to reserve space for the children of alumni. Building alumni loyalty is one of the foundations of an institution’s economic health.
Another question is a logical conundrum. A university cannot set a number for admissions that is discriminatory on the basis of race. But once you have decided on admissions you have a number. So, which came first in this chicken-egg situation? The plaintiffs in this case argue that the recent incoming freshman classes at Harvard look so similar that it indicates quotas are being used. Whether the lack of significant year-to-year differences is evidence of a chicken or an egg will be up to the judge.
The central issue of the case, though, remains control, not the mechanics of sorting through 42,942 applications (for the class of 2022). Control of admissions means control of a university’s character and destiny. We need no better example of this than New York City’s “open admissions” policy, which nearly destroyed the academic credibility of its tuition-free higher education system.
There is a lot at stake in this case; more than just Harvard, it will affect the future of higher education.
James McCusker is a Bothell economist, educator and consultant.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.